The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-26
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court
Hon. Byron X. Elliott Chief justice
The following opinions were rendered Jan. %:
HABEAs coRPUs-coUNTINUANcEs
1852. Patrick McGure vs. Robert C. Wal
lace. Fulton c. G. Affirmed. Mitchell, j.
Habeas corpus proceedings. The facts are that
appellant was committed on a charge or murder,
the indictment being returned to the September
term AT that term the cause was continued
by agreement At the two succeeding terms the
cause was continued by the State over the ap-
pellants objections, it being claimed that there
was an important witness absent. Application
for writ under Sections 1882 and 1854. Section
1884 contempates that the accused is not to be
discharged, as matter of course after the ex-
piration of two terms of continuous confinement,
or under the provisions of Section 1882 except
upon application to the court After such con-
fnement that section contemplates that APP
picatlon may be made for the discharge of the
defendant. Upon application, it becomes ques-
tion whether the delay resulted from any of the
causes which are within the exception contained
In Section 1882. If the delay was not occasioned
by any of the matters within the exception the
court, If satisfied that there is evidence for the
State which reasonable diligence had not enabled
it TO procure, and that there is just ground to
believe that such evidence may be procured by
the next term, shall continue the cause and re-
mand the prisoner. IT, however, upon such ap-
plication the court should be satisfied that the
delay was the result of one Of the causes within
the exception, it should continue the cause until
the next term and remand the prisoner uncon-
ditionally to await his trial. AS long as the
State is able to make 1t appear that the occasion
Of the delay is one of the excepted causes
the application must fail The appellants first
application having resulted in a continuance I'M
til the next term, 1t is claimed the only order
which the court had jurisdiction to make upon
the second application was one discharging. The
application involved an inquiry of fact as to the
cause of delay, and it must be pre-
sumed the court heard the evidence on both
sides. The judgment. until reversed by another
order, is valid and good authority for retaining
| the prisoner.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.
1909. Charles Fl. Macarthur vs.. Conrad Left
| Ter. Pulaski G.. G.. Reversed Howk, ID.
| The withdrawal of a defendants appearance in
of itself effects the withdrawal of all his
| peadings (2) When the court permitted
attorneys to withdraw their appearance it was
not competent to take any further proceedings
in the until after proof of issue and service
of ,ocess on the defendant had been made.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1900. The Phoenix Insurance Company vs.
David Allen, jr., ct al Jefferson c. c. Affirmed
Niblack J.-Where in an application for policy
OF insurance amisdescripton of the location of thu
| property was inserted by the agent of the com
| pany without the knowledge or consent of thu
| insured, evidence of the misdescription was ad
| missable, in an action on the policy. The com
! pany was estopped to set up the misdescripti
| as defense.
INDICTMENT-TIME.
| 1889. State vs. jefferson G. Patterson
| Hancock c. G. Reversed. Collars J.-Indict
ment for illegal voting. An indictment will b,
| considered a whole in ascertaining the TIM
| charged, as we'll as in constituting other charge
therein. Under the statute, Sections 1856, al
| indictment is not bad because the time is stated
| imperfectly. unless time is of the essence of tn
| ofense. The time of the offense stated wa
| after the return of the indictment, but LOOKING
| to the Indictment as whole the offense /
| stated with sufficient certainty.
MEDIcINE-srATUTE-PoLI POWERS
1885. Albert Eastman VS.. State Steube,
c. c. Affirmed. Elliott. c. 1.-The statute regu
latine the practice Of medicine and surgery is al
exercise of the police power inherent in tn
State, and it is valid. (2) The act does no
confer on the county clerk judicial powers, an
| is not void for that reason. g. Exceptions t
| a statute will not be created when the words ar
| free from ambiguity and the purpose plain.
1857 Bedford, ETC., Railway Company vs.
Alex G. Glover. Monroe c. G. Dismissed.